Gonzalo Rodriguez-Pereyra argues for Resemblance Nominalism. A cornerstone
of his case is that claim that the particular X can itself be a truthmaker for
X is F, even when it is contingent that X is F. Rodriguez-Pereyra's claim is
based on counterpart theory, in particular the claim that X itself exists only
in one world. Thus the existence of X, it is claimed, entails that X is F. I
show that this is an idiosyncratic reading of modal claims (such as those involving
entailment). It has absurd conseuquences; it contradicts other things Rodriguez-Pereyra
says; and in any case the argument can be finessed by the realist opponent.